This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alextejthompson (talk | contribs) at 16:45, 23 April 2023 (→Wikivoyage:Qu'est-ce qu'un guide local).

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Alextejthompson in topic April 2023


Votes for deletion

This page lists articles, files and templates that are nominated for deletion. Any Wikivoyager can make a nomination or comment on any nomination. Nominations or comments should follow a rationale based on our deletion policy.

If our deletion policy leads towards a merge or redirect, then coordinate this on the discussion page of the article.

The purpose of this page is limited to the interpretation and application of our deletion policy. You can discuss what our deletion policies should be on the deletion policy discussion page.

Nominating

Add a {{vfd}} tag to the top of the article, file or template being proposed for deletion, so that people viewing it will be aware. Place the tag at the very top, before everything else, except the page banner. Do note though, if you're tagging a template for deletion, use <noinclude>{{vfd}}</noinclude> instead of {{vfd}} alone.

Add a link to the article, file or template at the end of the list below, along with the reason why it is being listed for deletion. Sign your recommendation using four tildes ("~~~~").

If you're nominating a file for deletion, make sure it's actually located on the English Wikivoyage and not on Wikimedia Commons.

The basic format for a deletion nomination is:

===[[Chicken]]=== Not a valid travel article topic. ~~~~

Commenting

All Wikivoyagers are invited to comment on articles, files or templates listed for deletion. The format for comments is:

===[[Chicken]]=== * '''Delete'''. Not a valid travel article topic. TravelNut 25:25, 31 Feb 2525 (UTC) * '''Keep'''. There is a town in [[Alaska]] called Chicken. ~~~~

When leaving comments you may elect to delete, keep, or redirect the article. If you recommend redirection, you may suggest where it should be redirected to. Any attempt to merge content from an article to some other destination must retain the edit history to comply with the attribution (CC BY-SA) requirements of the free license, so it may be possible to merge and redirect but not to merge and delete. Sign your comment using four tildes ("~~~~").

Deleting, or not

  • If, after 14 days of discussion, the consensus is to delete, an administrator may delete it.
  • If, after 14 days of discussion, the consensus is to redirect or merge, any Wikivoyager may do it. If you make a redirect, please check for any resulting broken redirects or double redirects.
  • If, after 14 days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, any Wikivoyager may remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion.
  • If there is no consensus after 14 days, allow a further 7 days for discussion.
    • If, after the additional 7 days, there is no consensus, the page should be kept – any Wikivoyager may remove any VFD notices from that page, and archive the deletion discussion.
    • If, after the additional 7 days, there is a consensus, implement it in line with the first three points above.
  • When deleting an article, check "What links here". Either remove the newly-broken links from the articles or point them somewhere else. Inbound redirects to a deleted page should either be deleted or redirected elsewhere.
  • When deleting a template, either replace it wherever it's been transcluded, especially if it served a formatting function. You can do this by adding "subst:" before the template name (especially if the use is in article space, you may then want to clean away unnecessary HTML or CSS code, which would make the wikitext confusing). Once that's done, you can delete the template without affecting individual uses of it. Otherwise, remove the template from all pages that use the template. However, do not delete the template first – this breaks links and will cause a swathe of red links, requiring a lot of cleanups.

Archiving

After you keep/redirect/merge/delete the article, file or template, move the deletion discussion to the Archives page for the appropriate month. The root archives page has a directory. Note that it's the month in which the action was taken, rather than when the nomination was first posted, that should be used for the archived discussion; that way, recourse to the deletion log can lead subsequent readers right to the discussion (at least for the pages that were deleted).

When archiving, always make it clear to other editors what the outcome of the discussion was. This can be done by adding the result to the discussion in a separate edit from the one in which you remove the discussion from this page; or you can describe the outcome in the edit summary when you remove the discussion.

If the nominated article, file or template was not deleted, then place another (identical duplicate) copy of the deletion discussion on the discussion page of the article, file or template being kept or redirected.

See also:

April 2023

Latest comment: 2 years ago31 comments7 people in discussion

Why would we need a link to a page in fr.wikivoyage about docents? Further discussion at User talk:Verdy p. I suppose this soft redirect is not eligible for speedy deletion, so I'm nominating it here, but I doubt the nomination will be controversial. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I didn't realise this was inter-language, but that does make me think it isn't relevant to keep here. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 16:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Delete. I understand the impulse to make redirects that are convenient to the creator (SHB2000), but "All" is a word with a specific meaning that is not "avoid long lists," and I don't want this site to emulate other Wikis such as Commons by using confusing acronyms that damage communication, just to save a few keystrokes for one or even more than one admin. I'd make a similar argument for Wikivoyage:OUTSIDE, with the addition that ALL CAPS is a violation of Wikivoyage:Capitalization, but at least the usage of that word is more defensible in context, so let's see if we have consensus to delete this redirect, first. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Delete. I detest the use of such acronyms at Commons, where I mostly have to click the link, which makes for frustrating disruption in reading discussions. If the redirects were to be used only to get to such pages easily, I would think live and let live, but fighting their use in discussions when they do exist is too hard. Much better that one person copies and pastes the name of the page they presumably have open (to check that they cite it for its actual content) than having ten readers interrupt their reading, click and close. –LPfi (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep – w:WP:CHEAP and is the initialism for avoid long lists. Also, redirect shortcuts in all caps are generally the standard, and deleting such redirects would make things even more complicated for users who are active on multiple English-language or multilingual wikis outside en.voy. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Also, WV:CAPS does not apply to redirects, FWIW. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
    • Creating redirects is cheap, but the cost of them invading discussions is high. If I would trust this kind of redirects not to be linked from discussion I would have no problems with them, but I fear they are created for such use. –LPfi (talk) 07:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
But this practice is common on every other English-language Wikimedia wiki, plus Commons and Meta. Why do we want to be the odd one out? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Because we want non-regulars to be able to follow our discussions, and we don't want regulars to have to learn all those shortcuts. I think we are special in that all other projects in English probably are offsprings from Wikipedia, importing practices with the user base. Wikivoyage has another background (like Commons, where conflicts with en-wp culture are common). This really is what we should discuss: do we want to follow the practice? If we want, then we should create the redirects, if we don't, then we should at least not use them in discussions. –LPfi (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
"[W]e want non-regulars to be able to follow our discussions" – and the result is many non-regular users are surprised by our lack of shortcuts and templates, because most of our non-regular users come from other projects where the use of shortcuts are common. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 13:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
I suppose we should discuss this larger issue at the Pub, with a larger audience. How many feel crippled when they don't find the Wikipedia policies or their local counterparts by their established Wikipedia shortcuts? How many, conversely, are frustrated by those shortcuts being thrown around. At Commons, references to Wikipedia policies are a common source of frustration, and I, for one, am frustrated when I have to look them up. If we had a consensus on the shortcuts not be used on talk pages, then I'd be glad to allow their use for private navigation. What I don't like is one user saving time by not writing out or pasting the page name and having three or more users look it up. A posting has one author but (hopefully) several readers. –LPfi (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Regardless of anything, using words like "ALL" to mean something other than "all" is just plain bad, in my opinion, but I also agree that the main problem is using these obscure abbreviations in discussions. It's very inconsiderate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps we should replace acronyms by words in the shortcuts. I use WV:TDF a lot, but I could just as easily use wv:time and wv:date, which are already shortcuts. These would give the new reader a clue about what it refers to. So WV:TDF should be deleted. WV:ALL could be wv:lists instead. Ground Zero (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Excellent idea. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Why can't we have GZ's suggestion, but also retain the status quo by keeping the current acronyms as well? That way, we won't have swathes of redlinks, continue the current trend without having to learn all our shortcuts over again, while also having the benefits mentioned by Ground Zero? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
The current trend? You've created a number of shortcuts, so I'm quite unclear on what the current trend is. Also, as I've previously stated, I don't think "because they were used" is a justification for keeping confusing links. If that were the case, how could we ever delete anything? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Creating a bunch of deadlinks is a bad idea, but keeping new acronym shortcuts is not a good one either. Maybe we agree (1) experienced users should stop using the acronym ones, (2) remove the acronym shortcuts from the policy pages to discourage their further use, and (3) only delete acronym shortcuts created since the beginning of this year. Ground Zero (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
I can accept that as a practical compromise. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sounds right to me. Pashley (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
  1. As one of two users who "excessively" use these shortcuts in edit summaries (I won't name the other one to prevent canvassing), I will agree to not use these links raw, both in edit summaries and in discussions, provided that no existing links are deleted. By that, I may still use something like "revert [[WV:TOUT|touting]]", meaning the shortcut won't be directly visible unless you browse the url.
  2. Okay. Fair point.
  3. As stated in point 1, I would like to keep all existing ones, or at least the redirects that I created (if this proposal gains enough support, I won't use shortcuts raw as stated).
Otherwise, fair compromise. Obviously, I won't entirely agree given that this means more work for me in the future, and the back of my mind tells me that we're only digging our own grave (by deleting new shortcuts in use), but whatever – I'm in the minority here. Maybe one day we'll learn in ten years time. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
"If that were the case, how could we ever delete anything?" – because these links have been used thousands of times in edit summaries, unlike other links which have been primarily used outside edit summaries, which means these links can be fixed. In my last 10,000 edits, at least 193 of them have a shortcut in some way or form (or about 2 per cent) – deleting them would mean trying to find what that shortcut means trying to look through the deletion logs, clicking the VFD discussion, then scouring through the discussion to find out what it means, and then get the answer. In all honesty, what you're proposing sounds like you want to make things less confusing but end up making things more confusing as a side result, but I'll get to GZ's solution. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
I agree to Ground Zero's proposal (above, of 01:14 today). If we can avoid listing and using bare obscure redirects, I don't insist on anything to be deleted. However, I would prefer them not be used at all (if you have precoded summaries, you could use the full page names as easily) and any not-yet-used one to be deleted. –LPfi (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
I also agree with Ground Zero's 01:14 proposal. I would suggest that the documentation for the shortcuts also says that they are ratained for compatibilty, not new use. AlasdairW (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm pretty much neutral on this, somewhat to my surprise. I will have no objection to either a keep or delete decision.
In general, I think new gadgets for sophisticated editors -- shortcuts & especially templates -- should be added only with great caution because they are confusing for other people. Certainly the standard for keeping those should be far stricter than for articles or redirects in main space. For example, I was horrified that we kept Template:Spaced en dash.
In this case, though, I cannot see that it is likely to do any harm or confuse people & it might be useful. Pashley (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion&oldid=4651225"